Obama spanks Wall Street.

[TheMercenary]

I would bet that is not a true statement.

[xoxoxoBruce]

You can put that money in the tip jar.:p

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You can put that money in the tip jar.:p

Damm. I stand corrected! Well some states regulate them, but according to that 40 don't!

Ok, now I want one.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You can put that money in the tip jar.:p

Okay, I love this country a little bit.

[Shawnee123]

You can have my nuclear bomb when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

[Shawnee123]

oh noes!

I'll match your radar with a scalia....but hold the beer.

I'm not meaning to disparage Mr. Radar. but....

In the meantime, why do you think this so hard to interpret> "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose..."

[lookout123]

I don't disagree with that statement. I was paging radar because long time dwellars are very familiar with what his response to this:

Originally Posted by Redux
No right is absolute and ~snip~

[classicman]

Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself. If you attempt to or there is evidence to suggest that you are planning to use it against someone that is illegal. Otherwise, not.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself.

Which is why everyone has the right to own 155 mm howitzers.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by tw

Which is why everyone has the right to own 155 mm howitzers.

Yep. But have you ever tried to clean one? Plus, the neighbors bitch when you plink at stuff behind the house.

TGRR,
Lives in AZ, where we actually CAN (and do) target shoot from the back porch.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself.

Not the point. I have the right to bear arms. Self-defense is not necessary to justify that right.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by classicman

Because you have the right to potentially DEFEND yourself.

Originally Posted by TGRR

Not the point. I have the right to bear arms. Self-defense is not necessary to justify that right.

Yes it is. Thats the basis of it. If you disagree, then why you have "the right to bear arms."

[classicman]

I'll have to ass-ume thats more of your humor.

[classicman]

Back on topic....

Thain ordered to disclose Merrill bonus details

A New York judge has ruled that John Thain, former chief executive of Merrill Lynch, will have to name names in a state probe into bonuses paid out at Merrill in late December, just days before Bank of America acquired the firm.

The ruling is a victory for New York attorney general Andrew Cuomo, who is investigating why Merrill paid out $3.6bn in bonuses during a year in which the firm reported losses of $28bn, and a potential setback to BofA, which had warned Mr Thain not to discuss details of the payments.

Mr Thain, who gave a lengthy deposition to state prosecutors last week about the bonuses, refused to discuss individual pay-outs, according to court filing from Mr Cuomo’s office on Monday. The filing indicated that Mr Thain’s lawyer, Andrew Levander, told prosecutors: “I don’t want to have him sued by the company for their saying he’s violating someone’s privacy.”

New York state supreme court justice Bernard Fried ruled that Mr Thain would have to answer the attorney general’s questions, which he is expected to do on Tuesday, but said specific information about individual bonuses need not be made public.

According to Mr Cuomo’s court filing, Merrill Lynch established its $3.6bn bonus pool on December 8, and did not reduce it during the following weeks, even though Merrill’s pre-tax operating losses turned out to be $7bn more than anticipated at that time. For the fourth quarter, Merrill Lynch recorded $21bn in pre-tax operating losses.

When the Financial Times disclosed the early pay-outs last month, BofA blamed the payments on Mr Thain. But evidence has emerged that Ken Lewis, BofA chief executive, and members of his transition team had a greater degree of knowledge of the matter than they indicated.

According to people at Merrill Lynch, two senior members of BofA’s team were involved in the bonus process. All three BofA executives have been issued subpoenas by Mr Cuomo’s office.

A spokesman for Mr Thain said: “Bank of America directed Mr Thain not to discuss specific bonus details. We continue to co-operate fully.”

In response to the ruling, BofA said, “[The] ruling [is] consistent with company’s position that the information is private and should remain private to protect rights of individuals and the competitive position of company”.

I think the right to privacy went out the window when they used public money to pay out bonuses while posting a huge loss. Is this some sort of new math or something?

(thanks tw, but we do NOT need another Enron accounting wacko-extremist cut and paste post)